Cabinet minister could face suspension over Brexit legal advice

Some news from the meeting between Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May: The Scottish first minister has said Downing Street must change course in order to avoid an “utterly disastrous” no-deal Brexit if the prime minister’s plans are rejected by MPs.

I used today’s meeting with the prime minister to reiterate that it cannot – and must not – be a false choice between her proposed deal and a no-deal outcome, which threatens to be utterly disastrous for jobs, business and living standards.

Instead, there must be a recognition that, if the PM’s deal is defeated in the Commons, as is widely expected, then a workable alternative is urgently needed.

That means there should be an extension to the Article 50 process, and we will join with those from other parties in trying to secure such an extension.

The SNP will lay our amendment to the meaningful vote later this week and we will continue to work with others to build consensus around alternative proposals that would deliver on the vote of the people of Scotland to remain.

With the UK government’s own published figures now making clear that any kind of Brexit would make us all poorer, the time has come for all those who oppose the extreme Brexit championed by the right-wing of the Tory party to come together and make a stand.”

A Downing Street spokesman said

The prime minister spoke about the support she has received from fishermen, farmers and business leaders – like Sir Ian Wood – who back the deal as it gives them the clarity and certainty they need to protect jobs and living standards.

The prime minister urged the first minister to listen to these voices in their support of the deal as opposed to risking a no-deal Brexit or going back to square one of negotiations.

Geoffrey Cox's statement - Snap verdict

Andrew Sparrow

Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, has achieved something remarkable; he has united all the Commons opposition parties (and the DUP, which is not sure at the moment which side it’s on) who now want to see him face disciplinary action for not publishing his full Brexit legal advice. John Bercow, the speaker, has promised a decision very soon, possibly tonight, and so it is probable that within the next day or so we may get a full-blown Commons debate on the government’s contempt of parliament. We don’t know yet what the motion would say. Normally in these circumstances it would just be a referral to the privileges committee for an inquiry, but given the point made by Labour about the need to resolve this quickly (see 6.56pm), MPs could soon be voting on whether or not to suspend Cox from the Commons.

The opposition parties cannot agree on anything else about Brexit, and that helps to explain why they are so vocal about this. Cox put up a good argument as to why the executive should be able to keep some documents secret, and it is worth remembering that even Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has said the government should not have to release every document technically covered by the wording of the November “humble address” motion (5,000 of them, ministers say). But this point did not do Cox much good in the chamber today. MPs are far more interested in these procedural wrangles than most ordinary people and so perhaps this is just a parliamentary sideshow, although Brexit was supposed to be able the Commons “taking back control” and potentially this move could have more far reaching consequences. As Hilary Benn pointed out in the Brexit committee earlier (see 1.41pm), quite soon MPs may be voting on motions telling the government what to do next in the Brexit talks. The assumption had been that ministers would have the ability to ignore such votes. A “humble address” motion is different, because it is very specific and binding in a way that other Commons motions aren’t. Today’s show of force could just make ministers a bit more nervous about ignoring parliament - although it would be unwise to bet on it.

The disclosure row has overshadowed the substance of what Cox had to say about the deal, which is another win for the opposition - because Cox was far better at making the case for the deal than May has been. That is because he was frank about the compromises involved, and about the need to make a political judgment about the balance of risk. He was also colourful and interesting. As a moneybags QC, his speciality is winning over juries, and today an open-minded audience might have been persuaded. But few MPs come to this with an open mind, and so his two-and-a-half hour submission may have been wasted.

That’s all from me for today. A colleague will be updating the blog if there are any further developments.

Bercow tells MPs he will rule quickly on call for contempt proceedings debate

The statement has now finished.

Nick Thomas-Symonds, the shadow attorney general, rises to make a point of order. He asks how the opposition can follow up contempt proceedings. He mentions the joint opposition letter (see 6.05pm) and says Cox himself conceded he was in contempt.

He says the government is playing for time. It hopes contempt proceedings (which normally involve a reference to the privileges committee, which then launches an investigation) can be dragged out.

He says this matter should be proceeded with quickly

Bercow says he has only just been made aware of it. He will consider it and deliver a “rapid decision”, either before the Commons rises tonight (around 10.30pm), or first thing tomorrow.

Geoffrey Cox rises to make his own point of order. He tells Bercow that he will be writing to him tonight setting out the government’s views on this matter.

Cox has been taking questions for about two and a quarter hours now. Normally only the prime minister, on topics of major national interest, spends this long at the despatch box when making a Commons statement.

Cox says government decision to abstain on 'humble address' motion was mistake

Cox says the government should have voted against the Commons “humble address” motion saying the full Brexit legal advice. The government told its MPs to abstain, and so the Labour motion was approved without a division. Cox said the government should have voted against. Even if it had lost, it would have been in the same position as now, he says.

He says he had no discussion with the chief whip on how the Torries would vote.

Cox told MPs earlier that, if necessary, he would be willing to be expelled from the Commons rather than back down over publishing his legal advice in full. As HuffPost reports, when asked about this, he said:

I hope the House will reconsider the position. I hope it will understand that no attorney would wish to place himself in contempt of the House.

The House has at its disposal the means by which to enforce its will ... It can seek to impose a sanction, I fully accept that. I simply say I cannot compromise the public interest.

Cox says, just because legal advice has been released in the past, that does not mean it is a good idea.

He says the UK is “in the middle of a negotiation”.

When MPs protest, because the withdrawal agreement has been agreed, he says that after Brexit the UK and the EU will have to negotiate the future trade deal. He says in that negotiation many of the same arguments will apply.